City of Boerne v. Flores: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=521 U.S. 507 (1997) |date=1997 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned= |partially_...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= | ||
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
| City of Boerne v. Flores | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 521 U.S. 507 (1997) |
| Date decided | 1997 |
Facts
Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to prohibit the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of generally applicability unless the government can demonstrate 1) the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and 2) the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.
Issues
Whether the act exceeds Congress’ power.
Holding
It does.
Rule
Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. While Congress may enact such legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the abuse of religious freedom, it may not determine the manner in which states enforce the substance of its legislative restrictions.
